Wednesday, October 31, 2007

It comes as little surprise that the Democrat party is displaying a strong, although decidedly un-American stance nowadays. We have been watching as slowly they have succeeded in demonizing Republicans in general and President Bush specifically. So successful are they at it, many Republicans tremble in fear at the thought of siding with President Bush, who isn’t as much a failure as the Democrats wish us to believe.

Where just a few short years ago, it was the Democrats who were disheveled and unorganized, they have succeeded in falling into lockstep behind each other and their outside numbers whose desire is to turn America from the Land of the Free to the Union of Socialist States of America.

Republicans seem destined to pine away wishing for Ronald Reagan to rise from the dead and continue to reel from the relentless attacks coming from the Democrats. Republicans seem fearful of showing any spine and standing up to the Democrats and defending what America is and always has stood for. Instead, they shy away from President Bush and even conservatism, which is what propelled them into power in 1994.

Instead of standing their ground, Republicans have allowed the Democrats to form the debate and politicize the current war, forgetting that we have been under attack for three decades now from radical Jihadists.

Lies and half-truths flow from the mouths of the Democrats and what Republican stands up and calls them on it? None that I can think of. Instead, I see them stammering half in agreement and half in shame that they may be caught off guard and may have to show some spine by telling the American public just what despots the Democrat party has become.

It is no secret just what the Clinton cartel is in America, they don’t even try to hide it themselves any longer. Hillary currently brags of their wealth and boasts of what she intends to take away from others while also bragging of gutting “the defense industry that needs to be pared down and reined in,” while we have Troops in harm’s way, mind you.

From college, Hillary Rodham wrote for her thesis, “THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT, An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.” Saul Alinsky wrote the book for American radicalism and apparently Hillary studied it well and must have passed it on to her cohorts in the Socialist Democrat party. Alinsky left thirteen steps to effect social change. See if you can pick out any the Democrat party isn’t following.

Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

Never go outside the experience of your people.

Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy.

Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

Keep the pressure on.

The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

Major premise for tactics is development of operations that will maintain constant pressure upon the opposition.

If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.

The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

As for the last, the obvious target of course is President Bush as he is their main point to run against, even though he isn’t up for reelection. Beginning with the lie that he stole the 2000 election and was “selected, not elected,” they have successfully personalized and polarized politics so much that we are now in an “us vs. them” mentality, on both sides.

Notice too that they instigate a scandal, make a mountain out of a molehill, and as Republicans are falling all over themselves seeing who needs ousted or how far they will distance themselves from Bush or whoever it is targeted for the moment, all of a sudden, Democrats have moved on and instigated yet another instance of making a mountain out of a molehill. An accusation is all it takes to succeed as the spineless Republicans representing us in Washington D.C. either will not or cannot do what is necessary.

Here in Washington State, we lost an ally in the fight against the Gay agenda over his own tryst with a male prostitute, who ended up blackmailing him. The crime of blackmail has been forgotten as Dems gleefully point their attacks at the Republican and Republicans demanded his resignation, which came today. That he has been a solid opponent to the Gay agenda in the state is forgotten, as indignation of his lifestyle takes supreme.

Dems paint him as fearful of voting his free choice because of being forced to hide his true self due to Republican homophobia. Republicans just demand he step down, even though he committed no crime. His immorality will most assuredly cost him his marriage. What escapes everyone is that not every Gay person supports the Gay agenda many oppose it. It also escapes Republicans that ours is not a lily-white party and Gays are very much a part of conservatism opposing the radical Gay agenda.

While I do not condone his conduct, he only has himself to blame for whatever happens now, I can’t help but dread who will replace him in our legislature as constituents are now led to believe how evil Republicans are and that a Gay Republican must hide their choice, while Democrats who are Gay may openly flaunt their selves and their intent of implementing a Gay agenda on us, as in hate crimes legislation, hate speech legislation and same-sex marriage. Somehow, Republicans feel good about ousting this man and others, even though in the end, we lose the soul of our country to the Democrats as they continue spreading their Socialist hate and take over the freedoms and liberties we used to have.

In Basic Training in the U.S. Army, we were taught our only prayer when being ambushed was to counter attack the ambushers. There was no reasoning, no appeasing, and no cringing, just counter attack. This catches the enemy off guard and can result in their dishevelment, as they aren’t expecting you to launch a strong and deadly counter attack.

We Republicans have no choice left now but to follow the old Football axiom of, “the best defense is a strong offense.” We need to stand alongside President Bush on permanent tax cuts for all, the War on Terror, our Troops, the economy, all the areas he has showed success. We need to ignore the Dems as they cry about the failures or other areas where even we disagree with him. Above all, we better get united and stop worrying about little matters while the Dems succeed in implementing Saul Alinsky’s simple formula for success, "Agitate + Aggravate + Educate + Organize."

It seems I recall a line somewhere that said, “America, land of the free, home of the brave.” Will we lose the first part of that as well? Stand up, Republicans. Show some spine. Your constituents cannot do it all for you.

Above all, stop playing nice with those that are going for your jugular.

It appears that the left has devised a new way, for America at least; to ensure their leftist Gay agenda is accepted. That being, if you cannot garner enough votes, then uncover and expose any Republicans who don’t vote your way who might also either be Gay or have had a Gay encounter.

That, my friends, is extortion, plain and simple. “To obtain from another by coercion or intimidation.”

We saw it with Mark Foley just prior to the 2006 elections, forced into resignation over his homosexual email contact with an of age page, as investigations confirmed. That no sex crime was committed didn’t matter, Foley voted against implementation of the Gay Agenda and special rights for Gays. Oh yes, he was a Republican too.

We again saw it with Larry Craig, caught in an airport restroom sting and who pled guilty. He also is a Republican and doesn’t vote for Special Rights for Gays.

A campaign has been under way to “get” those who don’t support Gay Special Rights and it has now reached down into the State level.

Republican State Rep. Richard Curtis, of the neighboring district of mine, reported to Police that he was being extorted for money by a young Gay man in Spokane, Washington. Curtis denied being Gay.

An article appearing yesterday in our local leftist mouthpiece, The Columbian, leaves me wondering just who they feel the criminal is, Curtis or the man who was extorting him?

While there is an admission by Curtis, according to Spokane Police, that he did have a sexual encounter with this young Gay man, is it really necessary for the Columbian’s writer, Jeffrey Mize, to write in such graphic detail of the encounter? Wouldn’t a simple statement of Curtis’s admission have sufficed? Who besides the left and the Gay agenda is served by such explicit graphics of the encounter?

Reading the article, the crime of extortion seems to take a back seat to the juicy revelation that Rep. Curtis, who is married and has children, and who has not supported the Gay Special Rights agenda and who is also a Republican, is accused of having a Gay encounter with a male prostitute.

Groups responsible for these “outings” claim it is hypocritical of any Gay in government not to vote for the Gay Special Rights Agenda. NEWS FLASH for you, not every Gay supports the push for Special Rights for Gays.

Where is the threat of your personal life being sordidly exposed to the public any different that all the complaints of Special Interest Lobbyists in government? Is it because it is coming from the Bolshevik left that it is tolerated?

NEWS FLASH for my fellow Republicans. The party isn’t ‘lily white,’ never has been, never will be. While I agree that the Gay life isn’t normal, it isn’t up to me to live someone else’s life for them. It is hard enough living my own without trying to live someone else’s. Your joining in with the bashing of these individuals is the fuel they need for their fire of defeating you and making you insignificant in our political process.

In the end I imagine Rep. Curtis can kiss his political career goodbye and maybe his marriage as well. Time will tell. Whether or not he is actually Gay is a matter between he and his family and they must now deal with all the sordid public scrutiny that was published by the Columbian and others. The male prostitute extorting him will probably receive a small slap on the wrist, if that, and be seen as a hero by the left, ridding the state of another Republican.

Actually, it just further deteriorates our nation as we move one step closer to Socialism and catering to a small group of deviants and away from the Representative Republic our nation was founded as.

Lew

UPDATE:Curtis resigns from Legislature. With this announcement it is difficult for me to determine who is happier, Democrats, for getting rid of another Republican, or Republicans for thinking our party is not somehow pure again. I pray they are as happy over whoever his replacement is as they are about his resignation. Don't be too shocked if you discover that it might be someone who supports the left and the Gay agenda and helps pass it in our state.

And, we wonder why Republicans are in the minority again? We do the Democrats work for them.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Everyone has visited a theater to be entertained by the latest offering from our favored star or starlet. Many of us grew up watching westerns, where the good guys always wore a white hat and defeated the bad guys in the black hats by movies end. Saturday mornings were a favorite of mine as in the 1950’s and 1960’s, we had Saturday matinees, open only to children and that included contests for trinkets, some cartoons, an ongoing serial where every week, the hero was left hanging in a precarious position and to see how he escaped it, you had to return the next Saturday. Following that would be the main attraction, a full-length movie western, or war film displaying the heroics of our Troops throughout World War Two or even a version of Robin Hood.

Since the matinees only cost us 25 cents to get in, our return wasn’t always that profitable for the theater, other than candy, soda and popcorn sales. But our Saturday mornings were tied up in the local movie house.

We looked up to the Movie Stars for guidance and were mesmerized by their exploits on the silver screen, often buying magazines offering articles on their private lives, or so we thought.

Gradually, movies took over for reading books, giving us a visual and audio content that books couldn’t. The message wasn’t left up to our imaginations any longer, the movies director and producers gave us it. The actors played the roles and some were given awards for their work. It never dawned on us that we were being molded one way or the other, until I was older.

I knew the stunts and actions weren’t real, no one was that superhuman, but it never occurred that our very thoughts and values were being set for us. This wasn’t necessarily a bad thing as we were taught to love America, to defend her and do right by others. We were taught to speak out and stand up to wrongs, to fight crime and not to steal. We learned to respect authority and obey the laws, to honor our Military and Veterans. We learned the values that made our country the great nation she is.

Somewhere along the line though, that all seems to have changed. During the 1960s we were treated to movies like Bonnie & Clyde, glorifying two of the 1930’s most cold blooded killer and robbers. Law enforcement became the bad guys, not the criminals.

Not too long after we were treated to 1970’s M*A*S*H*, a comedy set in the Korean War, but decidedly anti-Vietnam War, as it followed the cut ups and antics of three misfit Doctors drafted into the Army.

Soon we were inundated with anti-war movies, not always comedies. We saw Deer Hunter, Coming Home, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, A Rumor of War, Casualties of War and a slew of others. All sent out the idea that defending America just wasn’t worth it. Catch 22 came along showing us the futility of World War Two, chronicling the tail of a Bomber Crew desperately trying to get out of flying bombing missions.

Not stopping at being anti-war, the movies began glorifying what we once considered deviant, such as was done in the movie Midnight Cowboy. Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid came along, once again, glorifying outlaws at the turn of the century.

Robert Redford and Barbara Streisand treated us to The Way We Were, glorifying leftist protesters during World War Two and after.

Michael Douglas gave us memorable performances in Falling Down, depicting a conservative defense worker who loses his job and who goes on a rampage and shooting spree as his life comes apart, and The American President, showing us that a President can indeed better the country if he listens to his lover and that the sexual escapades of a President isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Of course, in the movie, conservatives are shown to be at odds with that notion and out of touch with the country. Imagine that!

Thinking back I realized that movies have long been the choice tool of indoctrination of the left. Once they saw how the general public instantly believes what they saw on the silver screen without question, the indoctrination commenced. One glaring example was 1939's The Grapes of Wrath showing how evil things were during the depression, except for programs implemented by the father of modern Socialism, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Viet Nam Veterans became hapless victims, as was often portrayed in films like 1985’s, Cease Fire. New movies are currently coming out, such as Lions for Lambs and meant to sway public opinion even further away from the War on Terror.

We also have a child’s movie, The Golden Compass, due out that is based upon books written by an avowed atheist and due to be released at Christmas, teaching children that there is no God.

And on it goes. Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Danny Glover (who publicly supports Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez), Sally Field, Sean Penn, Rosie McDonnell, Michael Douglas, Barbara Streisand, Robert Redford, you name them, they all have either produced or appeared in movies designed to indoctrinate over entertain. All are decidedly leftists who would take from us to give to others while retaining their own, furthering the Socialist lefts agenda.

All have used their celebrity to lead the public down the leftist path with total impunity for any anti-American activities they may have committed. We surely haven’t forgotten “Hanoi” Jane Fonda and her visits to North Viet Nam and her advocating Communism, while she lavishes herself with unimagined wealth.

I have not gone to a movie in years now and will not in the foreseeable future because I will not add to the wealth of those who desire to take what little I have and give it away and who ridicule American conservative values.

Some of these celebrities threatened to leave America if George W. Bush were elected. Once he won the election, all recanted and denied ever making the claim. We don't call them Hollyweird for nothing.

The following was left on my blog as a comment, but deserves full recognition as a post. It is from fousesquawk blogsite by Gary Fouse.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

America-Could We Lose It?

About ten years ago, while I was researching my first book, The Languages of the Former Soviet Republics-Their History and Development, I gained a lot of insights into the history of the Soviet Union itself and how it collapsed. True, Gorbachev and his reforms, followed by the attempted coup were the final contributors. Ronald Reagan kept up the pressure on the USSR with his defense programs, also helping push them over the edge. However, one of the largest factors in the collapse of the USSR was the re-awakening of the non-Russian republics and peoples in favor of their own identities and languages. Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika reforms had allowed the non-Russian peoples to once again discuss these issues, which, beginning under Stalin, had been severely repressed. The eventual result was a move to independence, led by the Baltic republics. In the end, the collapse of the USSR shocked the world-a major superpower collapsing under its own weight without being conquered militarily by any other power.

I often wonder if the same thing could happen to America. Obviously, there is no other power or combination of powers that could invade us and defeat us militarily. Yet, could we, like the former Soviet Union, suddenly collapse from within? It is tempting to quickly say no, that our free and democratic system has proven itself to be resilient, even during times of crisis like Watergate and the resignation of Nixon. Yet.......

It is obvious to everyone that we (and the rest of the world) are facing a major new challenge in Islamic fundamentalism that not only threatens to blow up the entire Middle East, but is threatening other nations as well from Europe to Asia to the Americas. Leaving the rest of the world aside for a moment, I feel confident that a united America could face this challenge.

However, we are not a united America. We are divided in a whole host of ways. We are divided by politics and philosophy, even to the point where we talk of red states and blue states. In spite of our best efforts, we are divided by race and class. In spite of the monumental Civil Rights Movement, the situation in the black inner cities is at a crisis point. Many blacks are still disaffected from white society, spurred on by "leaders" such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. The illegal immigration issue is dividing many Latinos from the rest of us as many of them see the demands for border enforcement as being racist. Our Muslim Americans are feeling alienated from mainstream society, especially since 9-11. Many of them feel that Americans distrust them as Muslims. They feel that their religion is under attack here and abroad. The issue of Israel has led to tremendous friction between them and our Jewish citizens.

That last point, of course, relates also to the war in Iraq, which divides us all, much as the Viet Nam War did. As many Americans protest that war and our whole involvement in the Middle East, some even question the War on Terror, wondering how such a war can be won.

More importantly, however, is the growing sentiment among our own people that America is not such a noble country after all, a sentiment with which I entirely disagree, This sentiment is fanned by the left in our society. Who am I talking about? How about Hollywood, the universities, the mainstream news media, many figures in the Democratic Party and the other assorted activist organizations?

In the universities (I teach part-time at the University of California at Irvine) and also now in high schools, we see a left-wing agenda being propagated by teachers and professors, many of whom came of age as students during the volatile 60s. Many of these professors now see their job as teaching their students about all the faults of America-racism, sexism, imperialism, homophobia, Islamophobia and so on. They use their classroom platform to rail against people like President Bush, the Republican Party and conservatives in general. Many of their students, inspired and egged on by their professors, engage in various disruptive campus protests against anything and anyone they disagree with, in many cases, not letting speaking events go on. Radical leftists can walk around and speak freely on campuses, but any conservative speakers need bodyguards.

Hollywood is another interesting example. During World War 2, Hollywood actually participated in the war effort, producing movies that reinforced the public's knowledge that we were the good guys and Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were the bad guys. That actually spilled partially over into the Viet Nam War. During the earlier stages of our involvement, John Wayne ( a patriot) starred in The Green Berets, a pro-American movie that carried on the tradition of the movies of World War 2 (and the Korean War as well). But as attitudes changed toward Viet Nam, Hollywood changed as well. Most Viet Nam War movies that have been produced since then have portrayed soldiers and Marines as being drug-using, psycotic misfits betrayed by their generals and the politicians in Washington who sent them there. Witness movies like Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon and many others. Today, movies about current conflicts take a position that we are fighting misguided wars, and treat the whole Islamic terror issue with kid gloves out of political correctness (Rendition for example).

As for our mainstream media, they, like the universities, are almost entirely in the hands of the left-to the point that they are now editorializing under the guise of reporting. They are actually a wing of the Democratic Party. Who am I talking about? I am referring to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle and too many other newspapers to list here. Only Fox News and talk radio can give the public any conservative thought.

When I was growing up, the Democratic Party was not dramatically different from the Republican Party. Both were fairly conservative and both were Cold Warriors. I guess it started to change during the 1960s, with the division and bitterness brought on by the Viet Nam War. Today, they do have some similarities in the area of corruption, love of power and pork-barrel spending of the public's money. Philosophically, however, there are deep differences. The Democrats have, with few exceptions, drifted solidly to the left with a more socialistic world view. The Republicans have stood for conservatism, on which in many cases they have compromised in recent years. Currently, members of the two parties can barely speak to each other, much less get anything done in Congress (perhaps a good thing?) It alarms me, however, to see how the Democrats cannot even support the president when it comes to our national defense. They don't want any eavesdropping on suspected terrorists without a court order. They want Guantanemo closed down and captured terrorists afforded federal trials with attorneys and all the other rights of criminal defendants. They don't want us to win in Iraq-just pull out- no matter the consequences. Meanwhile, politicians and government leaders on both sides of the aisle continue to bicker and fiddle while the country burns. It is disgraceful, but look at most of the characters we have in Washington and state and local offices around the country. Their one common attribute is ambition and little else. Meanwhile, our youth witness how many of our leaders act. If it's not Mark Foley chasing young pages around Washington, it's Bill Clinton turning the White House into a bordello, committing perjury and somehow remaining in office. If it's not William Jefferson caught on tape accepting a $100,000 bribe from the FBI, it's Larry Craig being busted in an airport men's room for solicitation of sex.

All of this is having an effect on the public, which is badly divided by left and right, forgetting in the process, that we are all threatened by the same enemy. Many people in our society are now starting to accept the idea that 9-11 was an inside job carried out by the Bush Administration to provide an excuse to start wars for oil. That itself is a scary idea that so many people could believe that. But consider that there is a University of Wisconsin professor who is pushing that very position. That is a prime example of how our youth are being educated today. They are not taught the essentials that my generation and my father's generation was taught. Rather they are taught all the historical errors of their country. Now we have a whole generation of young, college-educated people who cannot find the Middle East on a map, but can wax eloquent about gay issues. Sadly, it doesn't take a grade school dropout to swallow the notion that 9-11 was Bush's doing.

Along those same lines, it seems we have raised a whole generation of Americans who have not learned the fact that our freedom has come at a price. They take it for granted and have bought into the notion that they are entitled to everything. Some feel that way out of a sense of victimization; others simply out of a sense of entitlement. Sacrifice, public service and responsibility have gone out the window. It amazes me that in the midst of all this, we have still managed to produce those marvelous young men and women who are willing to wear the uniform of our country and put their lives on the line. They are the very best that our society has to offer. Yet, they get no respect from certain institutions like the universities.

Another factor which must be considered is the coursening of our culture. When did it become ok to sell pornography openly in stores or on the Internet? When did it become commonplace to see convicted child rapists (a rampant phenomenom in America) given probation or light sentences of say, one year, which happens with regularity in states like Vermont and Massachusetts? When did we get the notion that we no longer had the sovereign right to control our borders and decide who may enter our country? When did it become commonplace for hip-hop artists to perform "songs" about violence, rape and killing cops, using a stream of 4-letter words in the process? (In my lifetime, I have witnessed the slow death of one of our great American art forms; black music with actual singing and musical instruments.) When did it become acceptable for a university newspaper (Colorado State University) to display a headline reading-"F--- Bush!"? When did it become acceptable for a high school to invite speakers to explain to a (mandatory) student assembly that unprotected sex and drug experimentation were good ideas to be encouraged? (Boulder High School in Colorado-2007) Maybe, just maybe, it started when we legalized abortion. Since then, babies by the millions have been terminated as a choice. Maybe that was when we lost our soul as a people.

But how easy it is to lose one's soul when God has been driven from the public arena. Now any reference to God is open to attack. The result? We are now starting to emulate the Europeans, who are so proud of the secularization of their societies that ancient churches and cathedrals over there are now little more than museums for tourists. Enter one today and you only see other tourists- no services going on-maybe an old priest walking around a lighting candles. I hope the Europeans enjoy their secularization while it lasts. In another two generations, with present demographic trends, Europe will be majority Muslim-but it will not be secular.

So today, Christians and their faith are under constant attack. Jews are also under attack for their perceived allegiance to Israel; thus, we see anti-Semitic speeches on college campuses, in many cases, by Muslim speakers invited by the Muslim Students Unions. Such is the case at my school-UC Irvine. Meanwhile, university leaders (like ours) wring their hands and talk about freedom of speech being paramount while calling any criticism of these hate-filled speakers as Islamophobia, a moral equivalent of the anti-Semitic speeches themselves. The bottom line is that while our own majority religion ( and that of our Jewish citizens) is being attacked from the left, Islam, with all of its intolerance and violent elements, is being cowtowed to by that very same left.

During the Cold War, one of the goals of the communists was to undermine us from within. Destroy Americans' faith in the country. Do away with religion and its values. Bring down the American economy and all our other advantages over other nations. Make America into just another nation among equals. Divide public opinion. They would be proud today at what has been happening here. Ever wonder what happened to all the American communists and sympathizers when the Soviet Union collapsed and Eastern Europe threw off Communism? They couldn't still proclaim themselves Communists and preach Communism as the ultimate answer lest they be laughed out the country. Where did they go? What are they doing now to help speed up the rotting away of our society and our power? There may be some clues in what I have written above.

So in my opinion, could America collapse from within due to our deep divisions? Absolutely, and I think there is a small but very vocal and active element in our society working to that very end. It is up to us to stand up for our country and our traditional values while at the same time, somehow, come together again. In this essay, I have written from an obviously conservative view, criticizing liberals. My essay is, in fact, divisive because I strongly believe that conservatism must prevail in this country. That in itself shows that our coming together will not be easy.

Gary Fouse

Be sure to stop by fousesquawk and thank Gary for such a well written piece.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

At times, I have been known to take a position that seems to inflame nearly everyone from both sides of the aisle. Some lambaste me, others say I am courageous and others still cluck their tongues and ignore me, relegating me to just another kook. That is the chance we take when we see something wrong that is chipping away at our liberties and should be corrected and take a stand.

This is one of those posts and all I ask is you read it and think carefully about what you have been allowing to happen and where we are headed because of it. If you can’t, so be it.

Since the time of World War Two, a steady and persistent push has been underway to supposedly do away with a once popular product, vile as it may be. Hitler, under the auspices of his National Socialist Party, advocated banning this product and prohibited his fellow Nazi’s to ever use it in his presence. He abhorred the product. His campaign against it reflected "a national political climate stressing the virtues of racial hygiene and bodily purity" as well as his personal prejudices.

The product? Today’s much hated and feared Tobacco!

This will not be in defense of tobacco or its use. Although I tend to enjoy my little cigars on occasion, I agree that it does stink and is bad for ones health. But, what else have we used over the years that many today enjoy that might also be bad for ones health?

My point is that we are falling into the clutches of Socialists who mask their take over agenda with the public’s hatred and fear of tobacco and smoking it, by initiating multi-million dollar campaigns in states to ban the use of it. I don’t mean the ban of it in public buildings, which I totally agree with, but spreading the ban to privately owned businesses and even our private cars and homes.

State after state places measures funded by out of state anti-smoking groups to force private business to succumb to their agenda and even supposed conservatives fall in behind them, thinking that such nanny state steps is for the good of all. Tobacco companies are accused of targeting youthful teens to entice them to smoke to create new smokers as the old ones die.

In Washington State ads were ran showing employees in bars, restaurants and bowling alley’s having to wear gas masks to work, because of smoke. Trying to run ads for the opposition becomes ticklish as advertising tobacco on TV has been illegal for nearly three decades, which leads me to inquire, how is it tobacco companies entice kids if they may not advertise freely?

Just about everywhere these measure pass easily and a new bureaucracy ends up being created to enforce the smoking ban and accept the fines if one is caught using this still legal product, or if a private business owner allows it.

Lately, in addition to excessive taxes already on the product, proposals for increasing the taxes even more have been suggested and now, to “care for the health of the children of the working poor.” What they don’t tell you is that, according to the American Heart Association, is, “Studies show that smoking prevalence is higher among those who had earned a GED diploma (39.6 percent) and among those with 9-11 years of education (34.0 percent) compared with those with more than 16 years of education (8.0 percent). It's highest among persons living below the poverty level (29.1 percent).”

In plain English, it is the “working poor” who purchase and use the majority of tobacco in the country. In typical Liberal ambiguity, they wish to burden the “working poor” in order to help the “working poor.”

As a side note and an example of the Liberals true desire for “helping the children,” in 2003 in Seattle, Washington, well known for it’s extreme Liberal ways, a proposed tax on designer lattes was handily defeated although taxes collected were to “pay for child care and preschool programs.”

Tax the hell out of those demonic smokers, but leave my Starbucks alone, seemed to be the message.

Also in 2003, in North Dakota, a measure was proposed to completely ban tobacco within the state. It would be a crime to sell, possess or use tobacco, which one would think would be the intent of the other measures, right? Not so fast. It too was defeated and due in large part to testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban, such as the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association.

As one spokesperson put it, “There's no evidence banning tobacco would prevent and reduce tobacco use because no such approach has been implemented. The ban also could take away certain funding for these groups for tobacco control programs.”

The truth comes out. Your health falls second to their desire for increased and steady funding. Follow the money, I was always told.

Speaking against these bans often appears futile as sheeple seem to agree that second hand smoke is killing thousands a day, even though study after study shows the opposite. Even the World Health Organization compiled a study and not liking the results, hid that one and performed another, until they received the results they desired.

Furthering their agenda, in 1995 an International treaty was proposed to bring tobacco control under the World Wide Control of the United Nations World Health Organization. WHO Tobacco Treaty includes tobacco tax and price increases, as well as “Other key technical, procedural and financial matters relating to the implementation of the treaty such as funding and financial support.”

Any guess as to just who will “fund” the bulk of “funding and financial support?” 168 nations have signed it to date, including the United States.

On the heels of all this, smoking bans are spreading to our homes, cars and even allow employers to regulate our lives off the job.

One government adviser in England proposed smokers be licensed to purchase cigarettes, another hidden tax to gouge one decreasingly small segment of our population.

If you made it this far, I suppose you are rolling your eyes and thinking how ridiculous to oppose smoking bans. No one likes smoking and it is better to just rid us of it, right? Refer back to the 2003 proposed totally banning of it in North Dakota. Look behind the effort at who opposed making tobacco illegal within the state and why.

What you might not have noticed in your eagerness to cast a vote in favor of these bans is that it isn’t only tobacco they are coming after. That is just the excuse they use to get their foot in the door. Other legal products are under fire today, products that we most all use and even enjoy.

The fast food industry has been under fire for cooking in transfats and not releasing their nutritional values of greasy hamburgers. Do you go to McDonalds for health food? I don’t.

While we are on risky behavior, what of those that hang glide, ride motorcycles, drive high performance vehicles, bungee jump, engage in extreme sports or even homosexuals who often engage in unprotected sex? When will the slippery slope slide to them?

The Socialist believes they have all the answers and we all must live and do as they do. No deviation will be permitted. As vile and disgusting as smoking is, it is only the measure being used to get their foot in the door for regulation of our existence as they see fit.

If your state is thinking of proposing a measure to implement a smoking ban, think long and hard before casting your vote in favor. Look to others experiences and their increase in unemployment. Think about just who is funding those pet entitlement programs so many enjoy.

Above all, think about what else they will decide to take away from you and others, “for the public good” and to “keep costs down.”

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

As happens this time every year, the Santa Ana Winds have swept into Southern California igniting dry sagebrush and undergrowth into huge wildfires, destroying much acreage and many homes. I cannot think of a year that some fires haven’t raged across Southern California.

Some of these fires are the result of arson, some by downed power lines, some by careless acts, but they happen every single year.

That fact hasn’t stopped the Democrat party from grasping a hold of this yearly tragedy and once again, shamelessly politicizing it. If it isn’t Global Warming causing these fires, all of a sudden, it is President Bush’s policy of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan that is allowing them to rage this year.

We have Senator Harry Reid (D. Nv), “One reason that we have the fires burning in Southern California is global warming. One reason the Colorado basin is going dry is because of global warming.”

Asked for clarification by a Reporter, he denied it, saying, “No. Here's -- here's what... I didn't say the reason the fires were burning in Southern California is global warming.”

Sorry, Senator, it is on tape, clearly quoting you saying just that.

We also have Senator Barbara Boxer (D. Ca) saying, “Right now we are down 50% in terms of our National Guard equipment because they're all in Iraq, the equipment, half of the equipment. So we really will need help. I think all of our states are down in terms of equipment.”

Then we have California's lieutenant governor, John Garamendi, also a Democrat, replying to a question as to whether or not the federal government is doing enough, “Well, they're doing a lot, and we appreciate what they have done thus far. I got some doubt about the value of President Bush coming out here. How many times did he go to New York -- to New Orleans -- and still made promises, but hasn't delivered? Okay, President Bush comes out, we'll be polite, but, frankly, that's not the solution. How about sending our National Guard back from Iraq so that we have those people available here to help us?”

Next we have Governor Bill Richardson, of New Mexico, posting on the Huffington Post Blog, “I look at the natural disaster in California and feel compelled to also ask President Bush and every candidate who thinks it is okay for our troops to remain in Iraq until 2013 or longer - where is our National Guard?” He added, “When a national disaster hits, our states depend on the National Guard. Right now, President Bush is robbing Peter to pay Paul to continue his disastrous adventure in Iraq, and when tragedy hits us here at home, Americans are stuck with the bill.”

Governor, if I may, we Americans get “stuck with the bill” for whatever happens in our Country. We see it in increased taxes as parties pander to groups for votes. We see it as we voluntarily donate to just causes, like the tragic and yearly wildfires in the west.

In answer to his question, “where is our National Guard,” they are off in a foreign land fighting to keep us free and preventing another massive terrorist attack upon our soil, Governor. That’s where some of them are. The rest, plenty enough to use, remain here ready to help when called upon.

Congressman Duncan Hunter, (R. Ca), presidential candidate and Representative of San Diego County, where some of the worst fires are currently raging, appeared today on the Mark Levin radio program and addressed this issue of our National Guard. He said, “for the Democrats, every time you have a, have a natural, a natural catastrophe, they blame it on the president’s policy and Iraq or Afghanistan and that’s just crazy, because you have two and a half million Americans in uniform today and we got less than 10% of them in Iraq or Afghanistan. We’ve got lots of people here in San Diego. For example in San Diego County, where we have the worst fires, we’ve got the First Marine Division stationed at Camp Pendleton and we’ve got thousands of Marines and I know because I’ve talked to the C.O. down here who could get out and could fight fires. But when you’ve got a wall of flame coming at you with 40 mph winds, you don’t just throw a bunch of bodies up in front of it. Yet, you have to wait until you get to strategic choke points and you’re able to use your aerial assets and you’re able to cut it off. So, this is not a lack of bulldozers in the State of California. In fact, I’ll bet all of the firefighting units in California engaged right now do not have over 500 bulldozers, and I’m talking about private contractors as well as the indigenous capability of the fire, uh, California Fire Department. They don’t have over 500 bulldozers engaged in this thing in Southern California, if you look at the numbers. So the idea that if somehow the National Guard was back from Iraq, and there’s only a small number of them in Iraq right now, that somehow we wouldn’t have forest fires, is a real stretch and I think even some of the Liberals, when they walk in off of the floor after having made a statement like that and the turn to their staff, I think they have to wonder whether they are losing their credibility, Mark.”

He also brought out that the National Guard sent out all their air tanker support, even before the received a request. Also mentioned was that less than 10% of the National Guard is currently deployed and actually, other than offering back up support behind the scenes, all the National Guardsmen in the world wouldn’t be able to get in front of the fires and stop them. All we end up with is a lot of dead National Guardsman, which I am sure would also be blamed on George W. Bush.

I hate to break this to the Democrats, but wildfires fed by the Santa Ana winds have been happening long before Bush was elected in 2000. In fact, a study released in 1999 from that bastion of Liberal think, UC Berkeley stated, “Large Santa Ana wildfires have been a regular occurrence along the southern California coast for more than 560 years.”

The lamestream media has also picked up the new game plan. Brian Williams on NBC’s Nightly News recently told viewers, “This has been the driest season on record, unusually severe, that’s leading some people here to wonder: Are these fires somehow a result of climate change? The U.N. panel on global warming did warn that we would see more wildfires, so is there a real connection?”

Anne Thompson, NBC’s chief environmental affairs correspondent chimed in with, “Wildfires so unusual today may not be in the future. A new study out this week suggests the impact of climate change could be stronger and sooner than expected. And one of the predicted impacts from climate change could be more wildfires.”

Unusual? Do these people know how to read a book or Google anything? In 1849The Oregon Siletz Fire left 800,000 acres burned. In 1853 the Oregon Yaquina FireLeft 484,000 acres burned. In1902 the Washington/Oregon Yacolt Fire burned across more than 1,000,000 acres in Washington and Oregon, killing 38. In August 1910 the Idaho/Montana Great Fire of 1910 burned about 3 million acres and killed 86 people. In August 1933 the Oregon Tillamook Burn, so named as a series of large fires that began in 1933 and struck at six-year intervals through 1951, burning a combined total of 355,000 acres.

And so it goes, every year. In the summer of 2000, before the election of Bush, Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming combined accounted for some 7.2 million acres burned in what has been recorded s one of the most destructive fire seasons in U.S. History. I don’t recall President B.J. Clinton being blamed for that season.

I think congressman Hunter has it right, as he explained to Mark Levin. This is just the latest game plan to demonize President Bush and Republicans in general. Why our Republican leaders won’t stand up and confront this chicanery by the Democrats, I don’t know.

These latest fires will be extinguished. Homes will be rebuilt. Maybe the left will wise up and allow the forests to be thinned and the dry underbrush to be removed, removing necessary fuel for fires. As always, the resilient will recover and move forward.

But above all, we need to stand up to these shameless and dishonest Democrat party leaders and tell them, ENOUGH! This level of political discourse is as low as I have ever seen in my lifetime, and appears to be getting worse.

It is long past time for those we send to Washington D.C. to get beyond this petty partisan bickering and get back to doing the work of the country, not just left winged bloggers. If they can’t manage that, the fourth arm of government, “We The People,” must act and oust these quacks from office in the next elections.

If, like me, you desire to see America continue to thrive and help support freedom, I encourage you to visit, seriously get behind, support and vote for Duncan Hunter for President of the United States.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Fox News just announced who “won” the text mail poll on tonight’s debate and it comes as no surprise that whiney Ron Paul has an astronomical, unrealistic number of votes, 39%.

I say no surprise because every single one of these online or call in polls shows Paul with an out of balance outrageous number of votes.

Pauliacs, NO ONE IS BUYING IT ANY LONGER!!!

Paul can whine and cry all he wishes America doesn’t want him. The boo’s he received from the audience speak for themselves. In scientific polls under controlled conditions his numbers are decidedly poor, near the bottom. Stacking online and call in polls isn’t convincing anyone, you are just fooling yourselves.

We won’t elect Ron Paul because it is totally unrealistic and foolhardy to, as I was once told he desires, return America to 1913 while the rest of the world remains in 2007.

America doesn’t respect a whiner, as he continually does.

Keep stacking these meaningless polls thinking you are advancing his chances.

It is with increasing distress that I read this morning, Liberty County Veteran’s Grave Vandalized. What distresses me, beyond the normal ghoulish and morbid act of defacing and vandalizing a grave site, is that this young man, Marine Lance Cpl. Jeremy Burris sacrificed his life for his country fighting an enemy far away from our shores to keep them from getting here.

I never knew Lance Cpl. Jeremy Burris or his family but have known many like him throughout the years and see him as an American Hero, worthy of all the respect and honor a grateful nation should pay him. To do such a ghastly act to his final resting place is beyond all reason.

Equally distressing is that isn’t an isolated incident, as many would think. The growing anti-war sentiment is once again spawning fruitcakes that, unable to force their view on others, resort to more heinous acts out of their frustration to sway opinions.

To be fair, I highly doubt the majority of the anti-war left, which is no secret I heartily disagree with, would condone such an evil and macabre act.

Since this war was brought to us in 2001 there has been increasing incidents of War Memorial, Veterans Memorial and Veterans Grave vandalism. A short list of these acts includes,

And now, we can add the grave of Lance Cpl. Jeremy Burris, who was just buried this same week, to that growing list.

It is not only a shame that some black-hearted individuals choose to act in such a cowardly and disrespectful manner it is a crime. A Crime far worse than the spitting, both physical and emotional, we Viet Nam Veterans at times received upon our return home.

Almost as disturbing to me is that I hear of so few actual arrests for these heinous acts. Is it due to so few actually care and won’t provide information to the Police? I don’t know.

What I do know is that at one time, citizens wouldn’t rely on the Police to do something about people committing crimes as this. The citizens themselves would rise up and deal directly with such nefarious cretins that would vandalize either a grave or a Memorial to our Brave Troops who laid down their life for us.

Have we gotten so sympathetic and complacent that those whose blood has been spilled for our liberties and freedoms means so little to us? Not in the Texas I knew.

Most everyone has heard of the Boy Scouts of America. At one time they were well respected and looked upon as a good organization, preparing boys to be men, teaching patriotism, discipline, love of God and country and such.

When I was a Boy Scout we learned many skills. Camping, fire building, cooking, swimming, first aid and even basic survival, to an extent. We were taught to be TRUSTWORTHY, LOYAL, HELPFUL, FRIENDLY, COURTEOUS, KIND, OBEDIENT, CHEERFUL, THRIFTY, BRAVE, CLEAN and REVERENT. We lived by the Scout Motto, Be Prepared. We were taught respect of our Flag as well as proper Flag Etiquette.

Many of those skills helped me make it through my time in Viet Nam and gave me a foundation for life that has seen me through many down turns, encouraging me to just pick myself back up and keep going.

You might even call the Boy Scouts of America the original Green Group, as our common practice when camping was the leave the land cleaner than we found it. We were taught to respect nature and not to litter.

Sadly, for quite a few years now, the organization has become the target of leftists who see it as a danger to their leftist ideology and it must be ridiculed, infiltrated and eventually destroyed. Anything that teaches a deep reverence to God and to America spells trouble to the Socialist leaning left.

To disrupt and eventually destroy the organization, somewhere along the line they became a target of the leftist ACLU because they did not accept Gays as Scouts or Adult Scout Leaders. For years, the battle has been ongoing to either disband the organization or force them to accept Gays, against the wishes of the Scouts and their parents.

It isn’t like these young men will be denied any information on Gay lifestyle as we all know that Public Schools cram it down our kids throats every chance they get.

Taken before the Supreme Court of the United States, the left leaning Court even agreed that they do have a right to ban Gays, as they also do Atheists and Agnostics, under their “constitutional right of freedom of association and free speech under the First Amendment.” By a 5-4 vote in June of 2000, the Court overturned a lower court ruling and upheld the Scouts right to determine by their moral code, who can and cannot belong.

Of course that didn’t set well with leftist, even though other lower courts for years upheld their right to select who they felt was best to be leading impressionable young boys. So the attacks continued.

Look to San Diego’s Balboa Park. 16 acres leased to the Boy Scouts for $1 a year and that they maintained, rebuilt and by fundraising and volunteer work, had a state-of-the-art swimming pool and 600-seat outdoor amphitheater built. The Boy Scouts have faithfully maintained the grounds and the park has been available to all citizens, not just the Boy Scouts.

We can thank the ACLU now for stepping in and protecting citizens from this Organization as they sued on behalf of a Lesbian couple and an Agnostic couple. U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones Jr. ruled the Boy Scouts as a religion and therefore their lease of the park was unconstitutional under the Separation of Church and State canard. City Councilwoman Toni Atkins, herself a lesbian, commented, "Now it's up to the Boy Scouts to respond and stop discriminating."

In the meantime, the park must be maintained by the city at millions of dollars of expense, where the Boy Scouts were doing it free.

It doesn’t stop there.

For as long as I can recall, the Scouts hold a national Jamboree every four years, with federal support from the Department of Defense in the form of “non-religious supplies and services.” They have been supportive in this manner for 60 years. Yet, in 1999 the ACLU filed suit again over “Separation of Church and State.” They lost that one.

Undeterred, leftist still assault the Boy Scouts every chance they can get. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, an openly Gay Activist City Solicitor has raised the Scouts rent for their offices in a landmark Philadelphia building by a whopping $199,999! To return to their long held $1 a year rent, all they need do is allow Gays to be adult leaders of young boys and members.

After the loud outcry these past few years over Gay Priests abusing young boys for decades, one would think the Boy Scouts would receive recognition for protecting youthful members. As can be seen above, such is not the case as Gay Activists and the ACLU has decided this organization must either accept Gays, or die.

Since their inception in 1910, the Boy Scouts of America have prepared many famous men for adulthood and even public service. While they have produced American Heroes, Industrial Giants, Athletes, Veterans and Politicians, a few have slipped through without learning the honor our country seems to be lacking today.

One such would be Senator and Presidential candidate, Barack Obama. A former classmate claimed that he and Obama were in the Boy Scouts together while in school in Indonesia. Although not the Boy Scouts of America, International Scouting teaches much the same thing in values, respect and honor.

Obama has come out refusing to wear an American Flag Lapel Pin. More recently he was spotted at a barbecue for Tom Harkin standing during the playing of our National Anthem.

He sure didn’t pick up such disrespect from the Boy Scouts of America.

Our country is in a slide downward as the values and respect we were taught as youth’s is under fire and being discarded left and right. Conservative values are scoffed at and ridiculed, even though America was founded on them and stood strong for decades by them. The Boy Scouts of America have been teaching young boys for nearly a century,

On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country And to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, Mentally awake, and morally straight.

Friday, October 19, 2007

Yesterday, in a heated debate addressing the possible overriding of President Bush’s veto of the failed SCHIPs act, Representative Pete Stark (D. Ca.) launched into what has to be considered one of the most outrageous BDS attacks against the President to date.

Rep. Stark stated, "Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old, enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

He continued, “President Bush’s statements about children's health shouldn't be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote to override his veto."

Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D. Ca) gently reminded Rep. Stark about House rules on personal attacks not being allowed. Rep. Kevin Brady, (R.Tx.) stood up saying, "It is despicable to have a member of this Congress accuse the president, any president, of willfully blowing the heads, quote, 'blowing the heads off' our young men and women over in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is dead wrong, and it is beneath contempt as well that we will sit here silently and allow such a remark to be tolerated, accepted, if not embraced," in his effort to express his displeasure with Rep. Starks comments and that Rep. Tauscher’s “gentle reminder” doesn’t adequately chastise Stark.

Requests by House Republicans to have the despicable remarks stricken from the record failed and they remain. Roy Blunt, Republican Whip of the House released the statement; “Pete Stark’s statements on the House floor this afternoon crossed all lines of decency and decorum. As a member of Congress, he should be ashamed. But as a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee – and the current chairman of its Health subcommittee – the Democratic leadership ought to be ashamed as well.”

“To claim our men and women in Iraq are serving there for the president’s own personal enjoyment – and worse, to suggest he’s actually ‘amused’ by the image of soldiers being killed – represents a crass appeal to the worst, most base elements of our population. It dishonors the continued sacrifice of our troops in the field, and disrespects their family and friends at home who pray for their safe return. The Democratic leadership should denounce these comments immediately, and Mr. Stark should apologize for making them as well.”

House Minority Leader, John Boehner (R. Oh.) released a statement through the Drudge Report, "Our troops in Iraq are fighting against al-Qaeda and other radical jihadists hellbent on killing the people we are sent here to represent. Congressman StarkÕs statement dishonors not only the Commander-in-Chief, but the thousands of courageous men and women of AmericaÕs armed forces who believe in their mission and are putting their lives on the line for our freedom and security. Congressman Stark should retract his statement and apologize to the House, our Commander-in-Chief, and the families of our soldiers and commanders fighting terror overseas."

RNC Chairman Mike Duncan released a statement, “Pete Stark's out-of-control rant is an insult to every American, Democrat or Republican. It is one thing to disagree with the war in Iraq, but it is another to go to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives and rave that the men and women of the United States Armed Forces are '[blowing] up innocent people.' The Democrats cannot stop playing partisan politics."

Pete Hegseth, Executive Director of Vets for Freedom and Iraq War veteran said, “This sort of rhetoric is simply beyond the bounds of civil discourse on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. Decency demands that Congressman Stark retract his remarks and apologize.”

Instead of retracting the statement or apologizing, Stark added to the record the usual Democrat feigned respect of our Troops with, "I have nothing but respect for our brave men and women in uniform and wish them the very best. But I respect neither the commander-in-chief who keeps them in harm's way nor the chickenhawks in Congress who vote to deny children health care. These brave men and women are in Iraq to protect our children — as should Republicans in Congress."

While these outrageous comments aren’t considered “over the top” by House Democrats, I recall just a couple years ago when House freshmen Jean Schmidt (R. Oh.), in November 2005 said during another heated debate, "A few minutes ago, I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

House Democrats exploded in boos and catcalls, demanding retraction and an apology, which Ms. Schmidt complied with. Her words were stricken from the record and she sent a note of apology to Rep. Murtha.

Unlike yesterdays flap, criticism poured in via phone calls, e-mails and TV reports, earning her the nickname of “Mean Jean.” NBC's "Saturday Night Live" ridiculed her while the Cincinnati Enquirer's editorial page, which had endorsed her congressional run, said she was "way out of line."

In a released statement, Schmidt said, "I am amazed at what a national story this has become. I have been attacked very personally, continuously since Friday evening."

Where is the national outrage at Rep. Starks over the top remarks? Where is the retraction and apology? Don’t hold your breath. It is just one more example of Democrats not holding themselves to the standards they impose on others.

What it is is a blatant example of the hypocritical double standard Democrats have.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Are you tired of not having the strongest candidate with the most consistent record and conservative values on the ballot?

Do we need to continue to compromise our own values and vote for a less than the best candidate to keep the Democrats out of the White House?

Are you tired of being led around by the nose, by the heavily leftist dominated media, as to who is most popular and our best bet? The same media that wants Hillary Clinton in office?

I am.

Ever since Ronald Reagan left office, we have been given few real conservative choices and both Republicans since have given lackluster performances, over all. Don’t get me wrong, George W. Bush has performed well in the War on Terror, I feel, in spite of initial mistakes in Iraq after deposing Saddam Hussein. His economic policies have been outstanding and he has grown our economy. He has made some good judicial nominations.

Still, he has been very poor on Illegal Immigration and securing our borders. He hasn’t done well in building public support for the war, which isn’t entirely his fault, even though he is a poor communicator. His support of the Dubai Ports Deal and nominating Harriet Meirs for the Supreme Court wasn’t well received. He didn’t oppose the out of control spending by the then Republican controlled Congress.

In all, he is a far better President than either Al Gore Jr. or John ‘F’in Kerry (who served in Viet Nam) would have been, but still less than the best our country could offer. He will be gone soon, not being allowed to run again and his Vice President, Dick Cheney, has no desire to run for President, leaving us with an open field of candidates, most of who appear to be prepared to give us more lackluster service.

We have Rudy Giuiliani, best known for what appeared to be stellar leadership of the City of New York in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. While he talks of strong conservatives values, his record says different.

Entering late we have former Senator and actor, Fred Thompson, accused of lobbying for a pro-abortion group, although pro-life himself. Thompson enjoys broad support, for a two-term Senator and not known for running strong campaigns.

Virtually ignored, especially by our media, is Ca. Representative and Viet Nam Veteran Duncan Hunter. Hunter is currently the only candidate that has a son serving in the War on Terror.

Duncan Hunter has a strong and consistent stand on conservative issues facing us all. He has maintained a strong stance on securing our borders. He solidly backs the War on Terror and as already stated, is the only candidate of either party with a son serving to protect America. He maintains a strong stand on keeping keeping jobs for Americans in America.

He is by far the most conservative and consistent candidate running for President from the Republican Party. He has ideas and a message that rivals that of any candidate and in debates doesn’t hem and haw, but provides straight and concise replies from his heart, not scripted.

What Hunter doesn’t have is support from those aching for a strong conservative candidate in the mold of Ronald Reagan. Many say they never hear of him, which isn’t surprising considering the lack of media coverage he receives. My personal estimation is that out heavily biased media won’t cover him due to the strong conservative stand he has would resonate well with voters if the message were broadly heard.

Supporters of other candidates without the strong and consistent record of Hunter can’t refute or deny any portion of his record or message and resort to ad hominem against him by claiming he is “unelectable” due to lack of supporters. The ongoing cry is something like, “I really like Hunter and his message, but he hasn’t progressed in the polls.” I read that as many aren’t willing to get behind a candidate that stands where they claim they desire candidates to, but are all too willing to get behind whoever is announced as most popular by our biased media, the same media Republicans complain don’t give fair coverage to our Troops in the War on Terror.

In other words, the same media that manipulates public opinion on the war is also manipulating public opinion on Republican candidates.

It is no secret that the majority of those reporting from our biased media desire to see Hillary Clinton and her Socialistic views ruling the nation and I feel they are also falsely building Republicans who she can either defeat easily or who would compromise with her and other Socialist Democrats, should a Republican win.

Hunter and his strong pro-America stand wouldn’t give in to them. In the fashion of Reagan, he would portray a strong America to the world and continue opposing terrorists that desire to see America fall. In talking with many I hear how good he is and strong his stand is then hear the same, “he has no support.” I ask why? If so many think his message is the best, shouldn't we back him and if he doesn't get the nod, can’t we still hold our nose and vote for whoever does, hoping to keep Democrats out of the White House?

If everyone who says he has the best message but no support were to begin supporting him, his numbers would grow astronomically. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth gave us a great example of what Grassroots can do. If those who feel his message is strong and the best don't get behind him, who will? He never will gain support if we don't support him and at least try.

We have absolutely nothing to lose in supporting Hunter believing that he has the strongest message and most consistent record. Not supporting him when we feel his message and record is best loses everything we say we want for the country.

If, like me, you are tired of holding your nose and voting for another lackluster Republican, selecting the lesser of two evils, I invite you to take a close look at Duncan Hunter. If you agree that his platform, record and message are the best of all the candidates, don’t wait for his support to grow before you get behind him. Get behind him and help the People Take Back America from the grasp of Special Interests and Socialists.

Donate to his campaign. Spread his message to all you know. Ignore the media’s chosen favorites and demand coverage of Hunter. Join in with supporters in your area and make calls to radio programs, write letters to newspapers, make signs and get bumper stickers, make his name known.

It is high time we Americans stopped holding our noses when voting and start letting the media know we want strong candidates, not who they tell us is best for us.

To their surprise, Code Pink was outnumbered by Pro-Troop Patriots in Berkeley, California yesterday. Berkeley is long known for their anti-war, anti-Military and anti-American sentiment and actions.

No longer.

I wish I could have made it myself and admire all those that could and let Code Pinko know what real Patriotism is all about.

Catherine Moy of Move America Forward has supplied an excellent write-up and lots of photos and a couple videos of the days happenings. Pop over to Move America Forward and see that Code Pinko and other anti-war leftists no longer own the Streets of Berkeley, California.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Although I imagine it was meant well, the Associated Presses Estes Thompson continues with one of the many exaggerated claims coming out of the Viet Nam War. In an article published today, Thompson headlines the article ’Fragging’ Is Rare in Iraq, Afghanistan.

Either by intent or naiveté, the opening line of the article says, “American troops killed their own commanders so often during the Vietnam War that the crime earned its own name - "fragging."”

Speaking as a Viet Nam Veteran, that is a bunch of horse pucky! While incidents known as “fragging” did occasionally occur, they were neither frequent or so often that a new name was applied to the age-old problem of subordinates killing their Military Superiors. Many terms became updated during that time and after, it is just nature. We have seen it from the changes of shell shock to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Same problem, different name.

Thompson also makes the claim, “Between 1969 and 1971, the Army reported 600 fragging incidents that killed 82 Americans and injured 651. In 1971 alone, there were 1.8 fraggings for every 1,000 American soldiers serving in Vietnam, not including gun and knife assaults.”

Troop levels had been reduced to 156,800 in 1971, down from 475,200 in 1969.(1) Given that the Troop Level was 156,800 in 1971, the year Thompson mentions and that there were 271 “fraggings” reported,(2) including both actual and attempted, and corresponding to Thompson’s figures, another way to say it would be .17% or, less than two tenths of one percent of all the Troops in Viet Nam at the time. Hardly an astronomical number, to me.

Of course, the intent is to show that Troop discontent in Iraq and Afghanistan has not risen to the level claimed for Viet Nam as he continues with a quote from Texas A&M University history professor and Vietnam veteran Terry Anderson, "These people knew the war was pretty much lost, that they were going to be sacrificed. They just wanted to get out of Vietnam."

Mr. Anderson fails to figure in that many of those deployed to Viet Nam at that time had been subjected to years of anti-war rhetoric in the States. He also fails to realize that we all knew the war was winding down and it was widely known. At this time period, many were sent to the Army by Judges instead of being sentenced to jail for crimes committed in Civilian life, in a misguided policy of giving youthful criminals the choice of jail or the Army.

Mr. Anderson’s claim that we pretty much knew all was lost doesn’t hold water, either. In fact, not one U.S. Military Unit ever surrendered in the entire length of America’s involvement in Viet Nam, unlike World Wars One and Two. Neither was any battle ever lost by American Units in Viet Nam, right up to the end of our commitment in 1973.

Through out our involvement in Viet Nam, the Communists continually circulated leaflets encouraging U.S. Troops first to defect and second to take part in the G.I. anti-war movement. They especially appealed to Black Troops citing the injustices done to Blacks in America in history. Less than 250 Troops deserted while in Viet Nam, far less than the 20,000 convictions of American Troops in World War Two for desertion.

To my way of thinking, it would have been much easier to simply desert and with the assistance of the Communists, make your way back to Canada or elsewhere that did not extradite draft dodgers and deserters back to America, than to murder a superior and set yourself up for a Court Martial that could result in a Death Sentence. But then again, I am not a learned history Professor at Texas A&M University.

To be clear, “fraggings” did happen in Viet Nam. Although not called “fraggings,” they occurred in every war America has ever been in. Less than two tenths of one percent of the men serving there at a given time hardly constitutes the excessive frequency that the anti-war left has tried to maintain all these years.

Thompson should realize that today’s Military is all volunteer, no draft and no youthful sociopaths being given the choice of jail time or serving in the Military, as was done during the Viet Nam Era. He also should realize that far less Troops have been committed to Iraq and Afghanistan than were Viet Nam. Then again, there is even more public support expressed today than we received back then.

While I understand Thompson’s attempts at shedding a positive light on the Troops serving today, is it really necessary to stand on our backs to do it?

Just yesterday the leftist blogosphere was ablaze with reports of Air America radio hostess, Randi Rhodes, being mugged near her home. Ms. Rhodes didn’t appear for her afternoon romp through broadcast mediocrity and radio host Jon Elliot had reported earlier that Ms. Rhodes had been mugged on Sunday night on 39th Street and Park Ave. while she was walking her dog Simon.

Elliot speculated further when he added that she “was beaten up pretty badly, losing several teeth and will probably be off the air for at least the rest of the week.” Further inciting listeners, he said, "This does not appear to me to be a standard grab the money and run mugging. Is this an attempt by the right wing hate machine to silence one of our own? Are we threatening them? Are they afraid that we're winning? Are they trying to silence intimidate us?"

Spare us the melodrama, Mr. Elliot. Your listening audience is minimal, not due to right wingers interfering, but due to the mediocrity of your message and lack of truly entertaining material. Perhaps that was what drove Air America into bankruptcy in the first place.

When all you have to broadcast is “I hate George Bush” and “The Right is out to get me” day in and day out, it becomes quite boring and even liberals seek something more suitable to listen to. Face it; even Hillary Clinton knows not to overplay the “Vast Right Winged Conspiracy” and “Right Winged Hate Machine” in every speech.

As reports of this little tidbit of titillating news broke, the leftist blogosphere erupted in outrage and anger. Almost immediately, “news” started appearing on several left-winged blogs of Right Winged Hit Squads and Brown Shirts roaming the streets in a near repeat of the Nazi’s 1938 Krystalnacht.

From DailyKOS, Democratic Underground, even to Ms. Rhodes own forum, we read accounts that can only be said to be the products of someone’s paranoid delusions and outright bigotry, if not fear, of the Right Winged political spectrum. We read comments of,

MadMaddie: “..if this is true this is very bad, obviously for Randi but if she was not robbed.....I am telling you the neocons are getting desperate.”Rageneau: “I hate living in a country were I have to suspect my government did this. Random mugging? Maybe. But IMHO, the odds of her being the victim of a random assault are much, much smaller than the odds are of somebody from the BFEE busting her chops just because they hate what she says.”tom_paine: “I think it was the Brownshirts, not the Nazi Leadership probably acting independantly, as Brownshirts often do. They don't need to be told who needs a beatin'.”Ldf: “wow. my biggest fear and i have stated several times in posts, that at some point, SOMEONE is going to snap.

it may be someone on the left, or it may be someone on the right. it now appears that it may be from the right. i am too cynical to believe that randi was a random mugging. she is too well known, especially for her outspokenness.

but once it starts, it will be extremely difficult to stop.

it could, literally, end in an ideology war between conservatives and liberals, that will rip this country apart.

a war that will be bloody, and claim lives. and once it starts, all grievances will be addressed. we won't be able to hide from the freepers, the freepers won't be able to hide from us, the politicians will not be protected by their gated communities... the shit will, literally, hit the fan.

too bad americans don't care enough to deal with the situation, but would rather ignore, whistling past the graveyard, until it is too late.

hell, maybe this is what has to happen before we can start to take our country back. i hope not.”tom_paine: “And when the perps, like the Anthrax Assassin and so many others, walk free free FREE, the message which is already quite strong, that it's open season on Enemies of the BushPutinist State, will continue to swell to it's inevitable conclusion.

Yes indeed, target key, prominent individuals.

She wasn't robbed and they literally smashed her teeth in.

Kristallnacht must have been comprised of thousands of singular episdoes like this one...”backscatter712: “I'm almost certain this was politically motivated. Pretty damned sickening. The right-wing hate machine needs to take at least a little blame for this - they'll of course say they had nothing to do with it, but people like Ann Coulter gleefully encouraged it. And so Amerika's Krystallnacht comes that much closer. Don't think I won't defend myself on that day...”

Before the day was out, Mr. Elliot released a written statement of, "I shouldn't have speculated based on hearsay that Randi Rhodes had been mugged and that it may have been an attack from a right wing hate machine. I apologize for jumping to conclusions based on an emotional reaction."

Air America itself released their statement of [Rhodes] "experienced an unfortunate incident. The reports of a presumed hate crime are unfounded. Ms. Rhodes is looking forward to being back on the air on Thursday."

Far left blog DailyKOS reported this with the headline Randi Rhodes and Unhinged Republican Violence, but comments earlier in line with those above seem to have disappeared after news of the claim were totally unfounded surfaced.

Calls by more level-headed people on the left to not speculate or jump to conclusions went ignored as shown at Michelle Malkin’s site, leftist were fired up and ready to do battle over initial and erroneous reports.

This is “responsible blogging?” No apology, just “I jumped the gun a little” and then launch into a litany of excuses of his erroneous claim and more attacks against the right?

No, stooge, there isn’t anything “responsible” in the reaction yesterday or your post. It is nothing more than pure paranoid bigotry of the right, hatred of George W. Bush and any who voted for him or still support him. It is hate that is yours and your sides alone.

Ms. Rhodes claims she doesn’t recall what happened to her, just that she fell down. One questionable source said she was drunk. I have no idea and will not speculate further. If she was, it is understandable given the lack of audience Air America has and the hatred festering in hosts and listeners of that network and their inability to successfully take over America and turn it into The Late Great United States.

I hope that Randi Rhodes recovers from whatever happened to her intact and returns to the air soon. Her diatribe is essential to America seeing these Paranoid Bigots for what they are. Nowhere has the Paranoid Bigotry of the left been revealed as it was yesterday over the erroneous reports of her mugging.

Monday, October 15, 2007

Rick Johnson of OldSargesBlogspot visited the Wall in D.C. recently and made an unexpected discovery. He has a short story and photos of what he found sitting there left by retiring General Peter Pace, a true Man of Honor.

I haven't received his permission to repost the photo's or story, so the next best thing is to post a link.

Visit his blog and see the true humility of General Peter Pace, truly a Man of Honor

Sunday, October 14, 2007

As most have heard by now, President Bush vetoed the bill sent to his desk recently to reauthorize the SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) program. Democrats are in a feigned tizzy as the veto is what they were seeking so they could have a campaign point to show how evil and heartless Republicans are, even though many Republicans joined in their acceptance of the flawed bill.

This past Friday, October 12, I received another one of those pesky emails from House Speakerette Nancy ‘the Stretch’ Pelosi titled “Heartless,” where she begins, “President Bush must have forgotten the compassionate part of "compassionate conservative" yet again when he vetoed legislation that would have provided health care for 10 million American children.” Further on she adds, “George Bush could have done the right thing. Instead, he used his pen to say: I forbid 10 million American children from getting the health care coverage they deserve.”

As expected, the email is all about how “Heartless” Bush is and the need to elect more Democrats so children can receive healthcare. What isn’t said is heavily flawed bill was sent to Bush intentionally to draw a veto. Included in her email are links to “15 targeted Republicans” to encourage them to override the veto, knowing that most likely they won’t.

My friend Spree of Wake Up America has a post up detailing the flaws in the SCHIP bill and what must be done. Facts about SCHIP. Included is contact numbers I encourage all to use to maintain the veto of this fatally flawed piece of legislation.

Since Bush vetoed this faulty bill, Democrats have acted as expected by their counter measures campaigning against George Bush. This was shown today in an interview with Democrat Steny Hoyer on Fox News Sunday. In the interview with Chris Matthews, he stated, “…what this program does is exactly what the president said he wanted to do when he was campaigning in 2004. He said he wanted to add millions of children currently eligible but not included under the child health insurance program to the program.”

Earlier, Republican John Boehner said, “Over the 10 years we've had the program, here's what's happened. We have 500,000 eligible children who have not been signed up for the Children's Health Insurance Program, and yet there are 700,000 adults on the program.

As an example, in Minnesota, 87 percent of the people enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program are adults; 66 percent in Wisconsin.”

“And what Republicans are saying is, "Let's work together. Let's reauthorize the program. But let's make sure that poor kids come first."”

“What we don't want is what usually happens here in Washington. You create a new program, and all of a sudden it becomes something far different than what it started out to be.”

Hoyer, after proclaiming Boehner is wrong about the adults and stating the Democrats have penalized states that did have adults on it, added, “This is focused on children of families who are not poor enough to be on Medicaid, and not wealthy enough to afford insurance.”

To show their disdain for Bush’s veto, Democrats aired a 12 year-old in a shameful display of using a child to further their agenda. Graeme Frost describes an auto accident he was in 3 years ago and that the SCHIPs Program paid his medical bills. Frost said, "I was in a coma for a week and couldn't eat or stand up or even talk. My sister was even worse. My parents work really hard and always make sure my sister and I have everything we need, but we can't afford private health insurance."”

With a minimal amount of research it was soon found that little Graeme and his sister each attend the exclusive Park School in Baltimore, MD, a private school, at a cost of $20,000 each per year.

In a Baltimore Sun Article earlier stating about his upcoming claims against Bush’s veto, the claim is made that his parents, “Bonnie Frost works for a medical publishing firm; her husband, Halsey, is a woodworker. They are raising their four children on combined income of about $45,000 a year. Neither gets health insurance through work.”

I’m no Mathematician, but simple arithmetic tells me it would be very difficult for 6 people to survive on the $5,000 a year after taking out the $40,000 tuition needed to keep Graeme and his sister in the exclusive Park School in Baltimore.

The article also states the obvious that, “Senate staffers wrote the script for Graeme.” I say obvious due to Graeme also saying, "I'm guessing he wants this money for Iraq. Our future isn't in Iraq. It's here."

Every time I think Democrats can’t sink any lower or become more shameless, they do it.

Not mentioned in the Baltimore Sun article is that Halsey Frost has owned his own company "Frostworks,” since their marriage was announced in 1992 or that he employed his wife, Bonnie, as bookkeeper and operations management up until 2007, when she joined the medical publishing firm.

A company known as DIVERSIFIED INDUSTRIAL DESIGN CENTER LLC purchased the building the Frost’s Woodworking operates out of in 1999, for a cost of $160,000 and with a mailing address the same as the Frost household.

This family “surviving on just $5,000 per year” lives in a 3,040 Square Foot house where neighbor’s homes have been selling for over $400,000.

Maybe the IRS should be looking into the income of this “poor” family that cannot afford health insurance for their 4 children that we taxpayers must foot the bill for.

My thanks to the poster “icwhatudo” from Free Republic for their research into this.

If I, with my $40,000 actual yearly salary can afford Health Insurance for my wife, surely the Frosts can come clean about their own income and purchase it for their family and not have taxpayers footing the bill for what is clearly a very upper middle class family.

President Bush was right to veto this expansion of the SCHIPs bill and his veto must be upheld. It is nothing more than a sly attempt at getting a foot in the door for Socialized Medicine, should it pass. Mostly, it is to get attacking points to demonize Bush and Republicans as the Democrats continue their Putsch for more and more power.

I urge you to use the contact numbers at the link above to Spree’s Wake Up America and encourage our Representatives to hold firm on the veto. We taxpayers will pay for truly needy and poor people, but why should we be paying for those whose income is most likely three to four times what our own is and who could afford health insurance, if they wanted to?

Lew

UPDATE: My assessment of the Fosters available income is wrong. By that I mean I have learned that the $20,000 tuition for the two children mentioned is being almost completely paid for by the grandparents. However, it does raise the question of why public schools aren't good enough for these children, but public health care is.

The Democrats parading this unfortunate child for expanding this program appears to me to be a strawman. At the income reported for the family, they qualify for the program and no one is trying to take now qualified children off of it. If the family's income is being under reported it is up to others to discover and correct.

I also must ask where was their auto insurance for medical costs after teh car accident that injured this child? All auto accident policies carry a medical provision for injuries to occupants and unlike health insurance, it is not an option to carry auto insurance.

Some left-winged sites are outraged that the childs family is under scrutiny. In typical leftist fashion, we are not supposed to look into claims made by unfortunates they prostitute for their agendas. Any person put out in front of the public in agenda driven pushes deserves to be scrutinized, regardless of what side they represent.

Words from Heroes To Heroes. Do No Harm, Especially to Yourself

Subscribe To Right In A Left World

Followers

Contributors

Important Links

Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing, great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. - Winston Churchill

“A veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve - is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The 'United States of America', for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'” (Author unknown)

---------------------------------

I stood up, I showed up, I stepped forward.
I raised my right hand, I stood in the gap, I walked in the fire. I did not run, I did not hide, I did not dodge, I did not evade.

Consequently...

I have nothing to prove, no one to convince, those who matter, already know. Those who don't, never will.
(Author Unknown)

African-Americans, are you tired of being short-changed by the Democrats you keep voting for? Fed up with their empty promises while you stay poor? Can’t understand why your lives never improve? You will find answers at the National Black Republican Association